Will Florida Abandon Its Winner-take-all Election Rule?

COMMENTARY

June 21, 1992|By GEORGE WILL, Washington Post Writers Group

As Maine goes, so goes only Nebraska --- so far. But Florida, with almost three times the combined weight of those two in presidential elections, is being enticed to join them in abandoning the policy of awarding all the state`s electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner.

If Florida joins them in awarding one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district (and awarding its other two electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner), it could do more lasting damage to the two- party system than Ross Perot.

Republicans, who probably have the votes to prevent the change from coming to a vote in Florida`s Legislature this year, said they would support it if it would not take effect until 1996. But Democrats want it right now, for obvious reasons.

In the six elections since 1964, only Carter from neighboring Georgia has carried Florida (barely: 51.9 percent) for the Democrats. Clinton probably can`t carry it but might carry up to eight of its 23 districts.

However, by opposing the change for this year, Republicans may have outfoxed themselves. Suppose Perot carries the state but Bush wins some districts, such as those in South Florida with large Cuban-American populations.

Ron Brown, the Democrats` chairman is agreeably free of pretense about high principles concerning this subject. He favors abandonment of winner-take- all in Florida, but not in New York, where a Democrat can hope to win the popular vote.

Democrats, losers of seven of the last 10 and five of the last six presidential elections, and with a good shot at making it eight of 11 and six of seven, should remember this:

If district-by-district allocation of electoral votes had been in place in 1960 and 1976, they might have lost nine of the last 10. Nixon in 1960 and Ford in 1976 won a majority of the districts while losing the popular vote. So the popular vote winner might have lost both times. One must say ``might`` because if district-by-district allocation had been in effect, the candidates would have campaigned differently.

Some people favor the change precisely because it might incite different kinds of campaigns, including less reliance on television and more recourse to local organizing. It might forge links between presidential and congressional campaigns, thereby combating divided government and generating something that could plausibly be called a presidential mandate.

Maine abandoned winner-take-all in 1969 but its electoral votes have never been divided. Maine`s two districts are so similar they vote alike. But 1992 will be Nebraska`s first election under district-by-district allocation. The district dominated by Omaha`s cosmopolites may vote differently than the two rural districts.

Suppose Clinton carries the Omaha district, Perot carries the other two and wins the statewide vote, and Bush finishes a close second in all three districts and in the state vote. Electoral vote score:Perot 4,Clinton 1,Bush 0.

One reason for low voter turnouts is that by Election Day -- sometimes by Labor Day -- the presidential winner of the statewide popular vote is known in many, even in most states. But there could be competitive races in districts within such states. However, higher turnouts are not so desirable that other good things, such as the two-party system, should be sacrificed to achieve them.

District-by-district allocation of electoral votes might incite third parties that would be shut out under winner-take-all. They could use selective campaigning to win enough districts to deprive each of the other candidates of an electoral vote majority, thereby sending elections to the House of Representatives, where there are deals to be struck and pork to be sliced.

For example, Jesse Jackson can never win 270 electoral votes. In fact, he probably could never carry a single state. But by the time this year`s redistricting is done, at least 30 of the 435 congressional districts will have black majorities, and more than 80 will be at least 20 percent black. Twenty percent of the voters is a good base on which to build in a three- person contest.

Today`s winner-take-all system promotes moderation by punishing parties that are ideologically, racially or geographically narrow. But moderation may be passe in the age of Perotmania, so while we are learning new locutions (Perot uses ``soundbite`` as a verb: ``I won`t soundbite that``), we had better learn the verb ``to cherry pick.`` It means to campaign in winnable districts of unwinnable states.